Re: starship-design: Zero point energy: Power source

[kyle <stk@sunherald.infi.net>]

Steve VanDevender wrote:
> 
> kyle writes:
>  > FTL doesn't necessarily violate physics.
> 
> If you say this, then you don't understand FTL or physics well enough
> yet.  Find and read a copy of _Spacetime Physics_ by Taylor and
> Wheeler.

The fact of the matter is, no one knows physics well enough.
> 
>  > Or consider these: distance modification; The ability to make
>  > sublight journeys to stars by quantum jumping; That has been done in
>  > laboratories. Any particle physist will tell you that.
> 
> If FTL were as easy as you say it would have been done by now.  The few
> FTL effects that are thought to exist in particle physics don't
> translate to macroscopic objects, and even when postulated don't
> transmit information or mass faster than light.

Particle physics not apply to macroscopic objects? If so, I couldn't be
writing this in the first place-Monitors would not work. And no, FTL
might not have been done by now. The other great discoverors were told
the
same: example: the Wright brothers were told"If God meant for us to fly
he'd have
made our bones as hollow as our heads. We would already be flying!"

> 
>  > You'd be surprised at how many scientists have postulated "technology
>  > that violates currently known laws of physics". As I said earlier,
>  > physics is almost entirely an unknown for us. We haven't begun to
>  > unlock its secrets. Maybe FTL doesn't violate physics. There have
>  > been scattered reports of slight FTL transversal.  (E-mail me if
>  > interested). I know most of you say that these reports are just junk
>  > science, but thats exactly what was said to the Wright brothers.
> 
> Whether FTL might be possible isn't the point.  The point is that we are
> trying to build a starship that uses REAL physics, not imaginary,
> unknown physics.  We're trying to build a starship that can be built
> knowing what we know now, not what we might now some time in the future.
> That's all there is to it.

All great discoveries were done by people willing to stick out their
necks,
and try the unknown. If we can't risk this, we can't walk in their
footsteps.
> 
>  > > The biggest problem with trying to design an FTL starship today is that
>  > > no one, not even the most expert physicist, has the slightest idea how
>  > > FTL could be realistically accomplished in a manner that would allow it
>  > > to be used in a starship drive system.
>  >
>  > Not necesarily true.
> 
> If it's not true, then demonstrate FTL on a macroscopic object.

I'm serious when I say: I'm working on it.
> 
>  > >If you don't know the size and
>  > > requirements of the drive system, how can you design a ship around it?
>  >
>  > Hmmm...Aha! Estimate! (we've done plenty of it)
> 
> Estimate based on what?  We can estimate the parameters of a reaction
> drive or sail system that can bring a ship to relativistic speeds based
> on physics and the known properties of matter.  If you don't have a
> working theory of FTL, then it's pretty hard to make the same kinds of
> estimates.

There could be unknowns even for relativistic travel. Let me ask all of
you:
Has anybody sped an object up to relativistic velocities in deep space?
A
MACROSCOPIC object? That is unknown physics right there.
> 
>  > > On the other hand, while the requirements of a relativistic drive system
>  > > are difficult, they are not physically impossible, and it might be
>  > > possible to build one in 2050.
>  >
>  > FTL may not be impossible.
> 
> It's not possible now, so we're not going to design a ship using
> something we don't know will work.  That's basic engineering.

We don't know if relativistic propulsion is possible using what we know
now.

> 
>  > My conclusion: I still stick by FTL as being a good propulsion system to
>  > use on our ship. (whichever one we build) Giant sail ships wouldn't
>  > work with it though- distortion would be so large, it would require ENORMOUS
>  > energy to create and maintain it without risking ship's integrity. Sail
>  > ships are dangerous even if used for sublight travel: One stray meteor
>  > shower and there went your mission, your crew, and several hundred billion
>  > dollars. My design does incorporate FTL travel. Similar to Alcubierres warp
>  > drive, but more...2050ish.
> 
> Space travel is dangerous, period, whether you use FTL or not.  Who's to
> say that FTL wouldn't be more dangerous than sublight travel, or that
> going FTL will make you immune from collisions?  Even imaginary FTL
> drives in fiction are often risky (Larry Niven's "hyperspace" being a
> classic exampe; get too close to a mass in hyperspace and you're gone).
> 
> As much as anything, our universe seems to be constructed on the
> principle "you don't get something for nothing."  If it's really
> possible to extract "zero-point energy" or go faster than light or do
> other things we don't know how to do now then they will probably come
> with a high price tag.

Then explain to me how the Department of energy, Motorola, International
Nuclear
agency, and scores of others are interested in an amatuer scientist, I
cannot
remember his name, who was on national television (Good Morning America
to be
precise) who built a device that can take in energy and produce up to
100,000
times as much energy as is input into it. 

I wonder if perhaps I should not have said that I am 14. It seems to
have
ruined my chances of anyone listening to me. I do not mean to be rude,
but I
am not just some dumb kid who has a "star-trek fantasy". I am a
scientist,
and a dedicated one. In the words of Carl Sagan: "The suppresion of
uncomfortable
ideas may be common, but it is not the path to knowledge."

				Regards,
				Kyle R. Mcallister